|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
22nd February 2021, 12:40 PM | #161 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
It's not Hank's case. What he argues is that the facts should speak for themselves.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But history shows it was RFK who shut down many avenues of investigation which drifted too close to revealing the Kennedy Administration's operations against Castro. Throw in the Kennedy family's influence over New York-based news media and what happened was a careful creation of a JFK mythos. This mythos lasted through the mid-1980s, but as CIA and FBI files were declassified the JFK legacy has tarnished quite a bit. The larger issue is that EVERYONE was trying to link Oswald to a larger conspiracy. The recent document release details this fact. Hoover demanded agents shake down their CI's at least four times throughout 1964 looking to link Oswald to Castro. The same was true at CIA.
Quote:
Quote:
In April 1964 the CIA's Mexico City Station sent a cable wherein they listed about 20 conspiracy theories forwarded to them by various Central American diplomats. Each one of these conspiracies would eventually become the subject of a "Tell All" book as low-level intelligence sources who saw the memo either misinterpreted its meaning, or did care that the theories were labeled as gossip. As the 1960s progressed, and Vietnam wore on, the JFK Assassination became parlor game. The myth that Hornberger postulates about JFK pulling the US out of Vietnam became popular even though there is no reason to believe it would have happened. Also, in the late 1960s, the FBI continued to investigate leads, but now their net had spread to the Mafia's involvement in the killing (thanks to Mark Lane). The Chicago Mafia was happy to use the accusation that they were behind killing JFK as advertising to their enemies about not screwing with them. This lead to the House investigation in the 1970s, and perpetuated the myth of a second gunman.
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
22nd February 2021, 02:53 PM | #162 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
Mark Lane, a left-wing lawyer, spread conspiracy theories about US government/right-wing extremists/Mafia involvement to deflect attention from the troubling fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Castro-lover.
The Soviets and Cuba spread similar conspiracy theories for similar reasons. The CIA and Bobby Kennedy withheld key information from the Warren Commission staff to protect JFK’s legacy - and their own - from being tarnished by association with the assassination plots against Castro, and so that Congress and the public wouldn’t get the impression that JFK’s death was some form of blowback from Operation Mongoose. The Warren Commission might have downplayed the significance of Oswald’s political beliefs out of fears of inflaming Cold War tensions to the point of (nuclear) war. After all, it had been less than two years since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everyone had an incentive for covering things up. Doesn’t mean that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the lone assassin of JFK, unconnected to any conspiracy. |
22nd February 2021, 05:56 PM | #163 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
FALSE. I understood your point. I first summarized your argument, then showed you how it was wrong.
In case you forgot, I wrote this (and more): I've put it plenty of places. He has no forum that I can find, so there is no way to put it forth directly to his circle. Here's one other place I'm currently debating the Kennedy assassination. https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk Feel free to invite him to join us here, or there, or anywhere the assassination is being discussed. The truth is not up for vote. It only happened one way. What the majority thinks really doesn't matter. The majority of people on the planet weren't even born when JFK was shot. I would venture we're over 50% of the population wasn't even born when the movie JFK was released (30 years ago) - if not, we're damn close. This is ancient history to most. Moreover, if more than 1/100th of one percent of the U.S. population has read the Warren Report, I'd be very surprised. I would wager far fewer than that have actually read the 26 Warren Commission volumes of testimony and evidence. So why does their uninformed opinion matter? I'm reminded of this comment in a different context about a different subject, but it is applicable here: "Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly." Jackie commissioned a book about the JFK presidency after the assassination. It was serialized in LOOK magazine (a competitor to LIFE). I don't recall it pushing a conspiracy theory. Both Robert and Ted Kennedy said they agreed with the conclusions of the Warren Report. I don't recall either of them pushing a conspiracy theory either. Blaming the "anybody but Oswald" fervor on the Kennedys when there are more obvious culprits (see below) seems to be stretching it too thin for my taste buds. The Soviets were pushing a right-wing conspiracy theory on the day after the assassination. But that didn't make much of an impact on the U.S. population whatsoever, which was familiar with Soviet propaganda. Most of the early critics were on the extreme left. Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Richard Popkin, Thomas Buchanan, Joachim Joesten, etc. Those are the people I read back in the day. Those are the people that moved the needle with the U.S. population's belief on whether there was a conspiracy or not. Indeed, I just checked Piereson's book online. And he blames many of the same authors for the spread of conspiracism after the assassination on page 124 of his book. (I used the "surprise me!" function at Amazon.com. Serendipity strikes again. I think that's an extreme over-simplification, but I'm not going to bother arguing it. Assertions are not evidence. They duck confronting the evidence because the evidence is against them. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
23rd February 2021, 08:19 PM | #164 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
If they have "No need to confront the evidence.", then all they are engaging in is fantasy and their assertions can be dismissed out of hand.
They can scream to high heaven that they don't have show how you are wrong, it only makes them look like true believing fools. They can say you are wrong until kingdom come and their opinion is worthless unless they can demonstrate that. It is obvious they are engaged in fantasy story telling and their story is constructed by them in such a manner has to be unfalsifiable. (All the evidence is fake, the documents are fake, witnesses are lying etc.) With this fantasy construct any fantasy can be advanced. For example I am a brain in a vat and everything I experience is the result of a conspiracy of AI to deceive me into thinking this is all real. It is all worthy only of contempt. People are perfectly free to believe in stupid idiocy, (Like JFK conspiracy crap.), without evidence that withstands even the most minimal scrutiny it is not worth taking seriously. And if they are starting with the stance that dismisses the evidence out of hand, with absolutely no proof it is fake, fraudulent etc., then it is worthy only of utter contempt. As for JFK planning to withdraw from Vietnam, that is and has been for quite sometime an easy to disprove myth. Of course JFK was planning to withdraw from Vietnam - once America had won the war!!! (Just like Lyndon) But withdrawal without victory? The evidence is close to zero. In fact recently disclosed documents reveal that JFK was much more deeply involved in the overthrow and assassination of Diem than previously thought and this was only weeks before JFK's own assassination. This of course provides no support to the JFK withdrawal without victory nonsense. Why? Because the main reason Diem was overthrown, murdered was because Diem was thought to ruining the chances for victory in Vietnam. The "other side" has to confront the evidence, if they fail to do so it only shows they are true believers who belong in the same place has Qanon nut bars, Creationists, believers in the great Jewish conspiracy and vast numbers of other true believers. The next level up for these people is into non-falsifiable clap trap and all sorts of stupidity can be put there also. |
23rd February 2021, 09:19 PM | #165 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
The best part is that both Hank and I used to believe the JFK conspiracy theories.
I read every CT book written up through 1995. I thought the Warren Commission and those who supported it ignored evidence. And then I went to Dallas. Every theory went down the toilet when I looked out of the 6th floor window next to the "sniper's nest" onto Elm Street, and realized that it was a ridiculously easy shot: https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/d...am=dealeyplaza Down on the sidewalk it was clear that no shot came from the Grassy Knoll, and a gunman would have been visible in almost all of the pictures of the incident. Every book I'd ever read made it impossible for Oswald to have hit JFK, and it is clear that CT authors either lied, or parroted other CT authors. If the CTists could screw up such an easy and obvious fact I wondered what else they got wrong. As it turned out, other than JFK and Tippit being murdered on 11/22/63 there are few facts to be found in any JFK-CT book. This is why I'm here, to do my penance for twenty four years of spreading lies about the murder of JFK. I know all the tricks. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th February 2021, 08:11 AM | #166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
That's what did it for me too. I didn't subscribe to the conspiracy theories before then, but I was prepared to give them a fair shake. Now I've stood where Oswald was. I've stood where Abraham Zapruder was. I've stood where the alleged Grassy Knoll shooter stood. I've driven the motorcade route myself with a Dallas local. At the time I was a reasonably competent rifle shot. I know which shot was easier. When you realize that most of the conspiracy authors must have been in that same spot and gathered the same observations, you realize it's more likely they know what they're doing when they peddle their handwaving nonsense.
|
25th February 2021, 01:41 PM | #167 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,056
|
There's been a rehash of the 2007 claims by Ion Mihai Pacepa (ex-Romanian secret police) that Oswald was a Soviet asset after all, and that he went ahead after they stood him down. This has attracted some press attention because his new book is co-authored by R. James Woolsey, a former CIA Director, to whom this claim is now being attributed. It's not clear to what extent Woolsey is able to corroborate Pacepa's theory, or if it really is just a rehash of the latter's speculation. Anyway, here's the NY Post story on it;
https://nypost.com/2021/02/22/soviet...-ex-cia-chief/ |
25th February 2021, 03:20 PM | #168 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
So many problems with their theory.
Oswald went to Mexico City to get a Cuban visa, and flipped out when they told him no. Then he storms off to the Soviet Embassy where he pulls out his .38 demanding the Soviets intervene on his behalf. I see zero tradecraft here. Then there are his actions in New Orleans. Why put himself on the radar as a pro-Castro activist? An assassin is discrete. Next problem is that no other KGB assassins ever used a high powered rifle. Competent assassins kill at close range. Look at the FSB's successful kills over the past 20 years, all hands on. Mossad kills at point-blank range. Consider Oswald's finances. The KGB would have made sure he could pay his bills. If he was a Soviet agent who went "rogue" they would have killed him before 11/22/63. Someone just wants to sell a book. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
26th February 2021, 03:40 AM | #169 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 695
|
|
26th February 2021, 01:18 PM | #170 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,056
|
Agreed. At most you could argue that he was radicalised and encouraged to carry out the attack, but it seems incredibly reckless of the USSR to entrust such a rube with that mission, given the high chance of failure and of the CIA figuring out the connection and the US retaliating. Frankly, any significant historical claim that first appears in a mass market book is automatically suspect.
|
26th February 2021, 01:30 PM | #171 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Look at it from the Cold War perspective.
Oswald had defected to the USSR and then returned. The KGB would know the FBI would keep an eye on him for a while, and certainly have a file. If Oswald was caught the first place the US would look was Moscow, which the declassified documents show they did. This was just over a year since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Soviets would have been risking all-out war. They saw the US military's movements during the Crisis, and they knew that LBJ and RFk were anti-Soviet hawks. Personally I can't believe Hoover didn't string together a link to Moscow anyway. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
26th February 2021, 01:36 PM | #172 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th March 2021, 02:07 PM | #173 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
While the CIA did the same thing but with Oswald's body double and an American mariachi band, also in Mexico City, at the same time.
To this day, no one knows whether the KGB-brainwashed Oswald or the CIA-brainwashed Oswald body double killed JFK. Or whether the whole "assassination" was a ruse to distract the fact that JFK had died a year earlier in a bizarre gardening accident. In any event, the authorities said, "Best leave it unsolved." |
2nd June 2021, 03:20 PM | #174 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,301
|
A new book out on the subject of the JFK assassination.
"Kennedy's Avenger: Assassination, Conspiracy, and the Forgotten Trial of Jack Ruby" by Dan Abrams and David Fisher Review https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-r...nedys-avenger/ MSNBC interview with the author https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibgn0Vuqa8E |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
2nd June 2021, 03:51 PM | #175 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Not the first book on the Ruby trial.
Dallas Justice by Melvin Belli, a genius lawyer (if you don't believe me, read his book! He'll set you straight): https://www.abebooks.com/first-editi...30914043573/bd The Jack Ruby Trial Revisited: The Diary of Jury Foreman Max Causey https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sea...20Causey&sts=t My personal favorite: The Trial of Jack Ruby: A Classic Study of Courtroom Strategies https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Boo...%2Bjack%2Bruby Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
3rd June 2021, 10:53 AM | #176 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I like Dan Abrams. I'm ordering this book.
The book points out that had Oswald not paused to change into that black sweater he would have been gone before Ruby arrived. Looks like Abrams and Fischer, both lawyers, focus more on Melvin Billi's defense strategy more than anything. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
5th June 2021, 12:07 AM | #177 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Book arrived today. The introduction is spent shutting down the conspiracy nonsense, which is a good sign. Looks like this is a lawyer book dedicated to strategies and personalities of the trial. I'm always happy to read a straight history on this event.
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th July 2021, 04:17 PM | #178 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
I find it interesting that the USSR and the domestic American Far-Left were so instrumental in spreading JFK conspiracy theories, specifically ones involving the CIA and anti-Castro exiles.
It’s almost as if there were some facts about JFK’s actual assassin that were embarrassing for them… |
24th July 2021, 04:26 PM | #179 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
Yes, the Warren Commission in particular, along with many US government agencies downplayed Oswald’s political beliefs, especially his love of Castro. From my reading, that was done out of fear that Cold War tensions would re-ignite to Cuban Missile Crisis levels and also, that Americans (specifically members of Congress and journalists) would start asking questions about why exactly a Castro sympathizer would assassinate JFK. In other words, was there something that the US government—particularly the CIA and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy—was trying to keep under wraps? |
24th July 2021, 08:06 PM | #180 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th July 2021, 08:11 PM | #181 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
It's not so much that the WC downplayed Oswald's political beliefs as much as they kept them in perspective with the larger fact that the man was a loser. Making him into a Marxist legend is what Oswald would have wanted.
And yes, RFK and the intelligence community needed to keep Operation Mongoose and JMWAVE secret. Poking around the Cuban exile community could have screwed a lot of things up. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
8th August 2021, 10:30 AM | #182 | |||
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Intergalatic Solar System!
Posts: 1,692
|
Saw this video on Youtube:
60 years later and there are STILL JFK nutters, like c'mon... Someone would've already spilled the beans by now.. : |
|||
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton "And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong |
||||
8th August 2021, 04:51 PM | #183 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Sounds like he spent 20 minutes "researching".
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
22nd August 2021, 10:34 AM | #184 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
Been reading this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Presi.../dp/1621572072 Here’s the thing. All Presidents get TONS of violent threats, some more credible than others. The Secret Service is even busier today than in the past with the level of political polarization and number of violent conspiracy theorists (!) out there. I don’t think any reasonable person could deny that plenty of right-wingers, some anti-Castro exiles, Mafiosos, white supremacists (JFK was pushing the Civil Rights Act in 1963!), Bircher types like General Edwin Walker (who was targeted by one Lee Harvey Oswald), and yes, perhaps a few bitter CIA people mad about Allen Dulles being fired and “the abandonment of the exiles in Cuba” had it out for Kennedy. Some of these people no doubt fantasized about killing him, and a subset might have been actively planning on doing just that. To reiterate: all US Presidents get a lot of violent threats. Ultimately, though, the simple truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who killed JFK, and there is no credible evidence that he was a part of ANY conspiracy—Left or Right, foreign or domestic. Regardless of who else was planning on getting Kennedy, Oswald got him first. |
22nd August 2021, 07:41 PM | #185 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Back in the late 1990s, ABC News aired a 1-hour special about JFK wherein they detailed his many sins. It was hosted by the late Peter Jennings and the underlying statement of the piece was JFK pissed off a lot of people.
Here is the important thing: Killing a President of the United States is a big deal. In 1963 you would end up swinging from a rope when caught. The Mafia knew this, the CIA knew this, anyone else with a grudge against Kennedy knew this. Unfortunately there is a mythology about JFK, most created by Kennedy loyalists and the Kennedy family, that has twisted the background of the events of his Presidency and has spawned false motives for his assassination. One of the big ones is the myth that JFK was going to destroy the CIA and fire Hoover. Neither is true. After the Bay of Pigs someone had to fall on their sword, and Dulles knew it and accepted it. After the failed invasion the JFK NSC EXPANDED the CIA's mission set beyond its charter. This included things like reaching out to major news outlets to funnel propaganda, and a doubling of the efforts to remove and or kill Castro. The myth says he was going to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces", but JFK made it bigger and turned it into the monster it became in the 1960s and early 1970s. All of the alleged and actual threats against his life are tangential to te events of Dallas on November 22, 1963. In the parlor game of the JFK Assassination CT-World nobody has ever successfuly tied Oswald to anyone, nor have they proven a conspiracy. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
23rd August 2021, 10:08 AM | #186 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
|
23rd August 2021, 02:45 PM | #187 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
|
24th August 2021, 08:58 AM | #188 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 425
|
You forgot that he was going to pull out of Vietnam, end the Cold War, and smash the Military-Industrial Complex. After which the world would enter an age of peace, truth, love, and beauty and everything would be so hip that we would live forever (or so it would seem) . . .
|
10th October 2021, 09:14 PM | #189 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
IF JFK was such a threat to the Deep State, why couldn't they leak all of the dirt on him about his horrendous medical condition, his womanizing, or his and his brother's OWN key roles in Mongoose and other CIA covert action (including sabotage of governments and - gasp- assassination of foreign leaders), especially since JFK was up for re-election in ONE YEAR as of November 1963?
Remember, JFK was only in Texas because be had to mend a rift a bitter rift within the Texas Democratic Party (LBJ and Governor John Connally vs. Senator Ralph Yarborough) and he needed Texas in 1964...just as he had needed Texas (and LBJ) in 1960, which had been an extremely close election, after all. |
10th October 2021, 09:47 PM | #190 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
10th October 2021, 10:35 PM | #191 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
|
11th October 2021, 06:10 AM | #192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
22nd October 2021, 09:46 PM | #193 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Biden, it seems, is no better than the last guy. Postponement of the final records release:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...dent-john-f-k/
Quote:
This is BS. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
23rd October 2021, 05:24 PM | #194 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
|
23rd October 2021, 07:16 PM | #195 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
They have had almost 30 years to get this done.
NASA went to the moon in under 8 years. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
29th October 2021, 01:10 PM | #196 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Ah yes, it's that time of year; the changing colors of the leaves, the chill in the air, and new JFK Assassination conspiracy claims.
Here's yet another "My dad's deathbed confession" stories: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...amp/ar-AAQ3OIg
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
29th October 2021, 02:20 PM | #197 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
^^^Nice debunking. Well done.
|
31st October 2021, 01:03 PM | #198 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
Not to mention we know an awful lot about Oswald's time in the period between his return to the US and the assassination. The idea that he could skip off to some CIA camp for a few weeks without notice is absurd.
|
31st October 2021, 05:08 PM | #199 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Yes, exactly, but as they say on TV, "There's more!"
Nothing about Oswald's shooting indicates sniper training. Snipers were not a thing in 1963, the USMC's modern Scout Sniper School wasn't launched until 1977, and the US Army Sniper School wasn't spun up until 1986. Any training at those camps would have simply been Marksmanship, and that was enough. Nobody in the CIA, or Cuban Exile Militia groups would have touched Oswald with a 10-foot pole. He was a wannabe. Even the Soviets and the Cuban intel folks saw this as a fact and kept him at arm's length. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
15th November 2021, 12:54 PM | #200 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,677
|
The flipside is that, assuming history is any guide, if the CIA or any other intelligence agency (foreign or domestic) tried to assassinate JFK, it would have been incredibly obvious and sloppy and have a high chance of failing outright. Way too risky.
Exhibit A from the JFK era: the many ridiculous and sometimes comical attempts to off Castro. More recently, the poisonings of Russian defectors and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. The culprits were obvious almost immediately and the attempted cover-ups pretty pathetic to be honest. As I saw someone on social media put it, “a big reason why I don’t believe the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination is that Oswald didn’t miss and fall out of the window of the Book Depository.” Covert operations tend to be clown shoes stuff as much as anything else. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|